It is not easy to be precise and complete about what people want; precision is difficult because we are complex, and completeness is difficult because there is so much variety. However, the preliminary need for what people want in the way of being is simple. The minimal need is to distinguish between those who are content with the given world, natural and social, and those who want and seek more, perhaps in balance with contentment (the distinction, of course, is not a polar opposition; rather, individuals dispositions in both directions, which are not necessarily experienced as contrary, but may be in mutually reinforcing).

Beyond survival, what most of us want and what is rewarding varies from person to person. In 1943, Abraham Maslow put forward a system of needs—a hierarchy, in which the motive to satisfy a need would arise only after more basic needs were met.

The hierarchy is (i) survival (ii) security (iii) belonging (iv) status (v) self-actualization. Later, perhaps in recognizing that there is more to being human than our secular nature, Maslow added (vi) self-transcendence.

The idea was seen as reasonable but is open to criticism regarding completeness, fineness and psychology of the distinctions, the concept of need, and necessity of the hierarchical structure (e.g., whether security invariably sought before belonging or self-actualization, or whether it is always sought, once safety is given). Nonetheless, it is a place from which it is reasonable to begin.

Here, we simplify Maslow’s system and arrive at the following elements of human need, want, and motivation—security, contentment, and meaning (‘meaning’ is rather in the sense of ‘the meaning of life’; note that ‘meaning’ will be used in other contexts and lessons, below, in another sense, that of the meaning of concepts). Survival falls under security; contentment is stretched to include belonging and status; and meaning incorporates self-actualization and self-transcendence, the latter in a secular or transsecular sense. Given realism, the use of ‘being’, later in the lessons, rather than substance such as matter or mind, implies, that there is no real distinction of the secular and transsecular. In other words, the distinction is an artefact of false systems of understanding.

Some people may be satisfied with security, some with contentment, and some are motivated toward meaning. ‘The way of being’ addresses those who may be at least somewhat interested in ‘meaning’.

I am not assuming that a person’s interests remain constant or that they cannot be piqued. For those who are neutral to the search, I hope that the way elicits some interest.

A search for meaning

For most people, a search for meaning begins with received tradition, secular and transsecular. Some of us would lead—philosophers, scientists, technologists, spiritual and religious leaders. Most of us, even those seen as leaders, lie somewhere on the spectrum of leading, sharing, and following.

In our present form we partake of incompleteness. We do not expect limited parts to comprehend the whole in its entirety. This is a source of limit, untruth, and paradox in the received traditions.

On the other hand, we may find completeness in some directions. First order criticism is of our comprehension of the real or the whole. Second order criticism continues the first order task but also looks critically at the first order and says—perhaps we can comprehend the real in some respects.

This will turn out to be the case. First, however, we should look critically at received tradition.

Science is not the limit of the world

The following items i and ii are consistent (i) all true knowledge, including science (ii) that the universe is the greatest possible.

This contradicts a common interpretation that science has revealed essentially all that there is (and all that remains is to improve upon what is known and fill in some detail).

However, though what science shows has truth, being empirical it does not rule out what it does not show.

The idea that science has ruled out what it does not show, i.e., that it has revealed essentially all, is based in two errors (i) that the patterns and models of science (the great theories, the cosmic singularity) extend beyond the empirical boundary, which follows only if it assumes what it asserts (ii) that because it is likely that the theories do extend somewhat beyond the empirical, they extend in the entire region beyond.

What is true of science is also true of common experience. We experience ourselves as beings of a certain kind, beings with certain limits. And the kind and limits are indeed real. However, though real, they are absolute, for we cannot extend our experience entirely beyond its boundary, which includes the boundary as organisms and the boundaries of birth and death (it is the reality of the limits that make them seem absolute; still, that there are no absolute limits will draw reaction; however, real but not absolute limitlessness will be shown, and objections addressed).

Note—here, it is claimed only that the greatest possibility is consistent with science and experience, not that it is in fact the case. The aim is to defuse the commonsense objection to what is demonstrated later—that the universe is the greatest possible.

The claims of religion

Given the limits of a primarily empirical approach, there is a place for hypotheses regarding the universe as a whole.

It may informed by a sense that, as in the line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet said, “There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” What may lie beyond is also a subject of rational-speculative philosophy (but modern western philosophy, bowing to science, significantly rejects this endeavor).

There is validity to the religious search; however, establishment religions, in their very nature, have accepted stories and stopped searching. Authoritative dogma is widespread.

The search is open.

The universe is the greatest possible

The nature of the universe—the universe is the greatest possible.

Demonstration—If this were not the case, the greatest possible would not emerge from nothingness and nothingness would not be nothingness.

Objection—this is inconsistent with experience. Response—the following are consistent with one another (i) that the universe is the greatest possible and (ii) true knowledge.

Meaning—only self-negating concepts are not realized. That is—the universe is the realization of logical possibility (logic is not restricted to our logics).

The main consequence—the universe is limitless, and all beings realize this limitlessness (if they did not, it would be a limit on the universe).

More on the meaning—every consistent concept is realized, i.e., limitlessness does not refer just to size, age, and other physical measures.

Further consequences— there are limitlessly many cosmoses of limitless variety; every cosmos is an atom, every atom a cosmos; the universe has identity; the universe and its identity are limitless in variety, extent, duration, peak being, and dissolution; limited beings realize this ultimate (they merge in doing so, limits are real but not absolute). There are effective paths to realization. The ultimate and immediate are immanent in one another; shared realization begins in the immediate and occasionally occurs there.

We are experiential beings

Experience is consciousness in all its forms.

The structure of experience is ‘experience of’ – ‘experiential relation’ – ‘the experienced’ or concept – intended object – the object (in pure experience the intention and object are absent).

We are experiential beings.

Anything that exists is a being (being is existence in its simplest sense).

Experience is the place of our sense of significance, the place of knowledge; without experience we are effectively neither alive nor dead.

That we are experiential is neutral to the question of whether we are or are not material / physical / living / or possessed of mind.

More will be said on this below—we will see that it is practical to see ourselves as having body and mind and the and the world as if material, but not valid to see all this as defining or limiting.

Stages of human growth

Here, we describe the stages of development of a human being. The description is traditional and pragmatic, but useful. The following stages (i) complement the elements of want or need (security, contentment, and meaning) (ii) are not entirely sequential as they mesh, and the labels attached to a stage indicate the main aspect of growth at that stage.

The idea for this system occurred to me, many years ago, when reading Ernest Becker’s quite wonderful book, The Birth and Death of Meaning, published in 1962.

The first stage of growth of a human being is ‘natural’—‘physical’ and ‘biological’ (terms in quotes may be seen as labels and biology is understood to include the relatively undeveloped ‘mind’). This is the dominant stage from conception through development at birth of the more or less complete organism.

The second stage begins with the growing infant but obviously extends beyond childhood; and learning—motor control, perception, socialization, language, and more. Let us call this stage ‘social’. Professionals tend to live at the divide between this stage and the next.

The mind is of course developing in the previous stages, but there comes a time when the person ’s mind is able to have significant function that is independent of social learning. One never needs to and probably never does fully outgrow social learning. The point is to develop independence from social learning and to be able to rationally select from and build upon it. This stage is independence of the ‘human’ mind, i.e., independence of psyche. Though it involves growth beyond social learning, it accepts what is valid in social learning and builds beyond it, vertically and horizontally. If, as we do here, we see the mind as part of nature, this stage can be seen as an extension of the natural stage. Academics and intellectuals tend to inhabit this stage. To proceed beyond is not difficult but usually takes persistent questioning and commitment to truth.

The next stage occurs when the mind begins to understand the true nature of the universe. This is a stage beyond the received secular and transsecular. In understanding the universe truly, the individual sees the reality of transcendence of self and organism, the merging of identities in peak identity, and dissolutions. Though the previous stages are transcended, they are not rejected, for the immediate and the ultimate are one: this world is significant in itself and as a place and platform for realization. This stage is ‘universal’.

The identified stages of development from organism to universality are natural, social, human, and universal. Though this progression is seen as canonical, maturity in earlier stages is not essential for the later.

Further developments in the stages*

Maslow’s hierarchy of ‘needs’ may be incorporated to the picture of the previous section.

Freud’s id, ego, superego is suggestive and may be worth incorporating.

An ego function is to direct the individual to behavior consistent with reality (Freud was concerned with social reality, but reality itself is pertinent; he opposed this to pleasure directedness but, pleasure has some basis in reality—we need not oppose reality and pleasure principles.

Ego is strengthened by affirmation. The ‘healthy ego’ is affirmed, first, by reality orientation and, second, by confirmation from others. An aspect of an ‘unhealthy ego’ is to short-circuit reality.

Some aspects of reality are given—we tend to think of nature this way. Other aspects are transactional—e.g., many social norms. A healthy ego is adjusted to this situation. Thus, the healthy ego does not reduce the ultimate to the cultural pictures (secular or transsecular). A healthy ego balances acceptance of social norms with contribution to them.

The universe is a field of experience

The universe is a field of experience.

Here the concept of ‘experience’ is extended to the root of being, where it is of the same kind as our consciousness but lesser in degree and quality; this follows from limitlessness.

It is not implied that there is no such thing as matter.

Rather, concepts and objects are phases of experience; and there are no such things as mind or matter in Descartes’ sense of them as independently existing substances.

Experientiality has a subject-like side and an object-like side which are as if mind and matter.

That is, in some of their Cartesian aspects.

This knowledge is an aspect of metaphysics.

What is metaphysics?

About metaphysics

Metaphysics is knowledge of the real. We are seeing that we do have knowledge of the real—i.e., not just hypothetical knowledge that agrees with some data.

This is a valid and powerful conception of ‘metaphysics’.

It has overlap with the received conceptions and subject matters.

A name—that the universe is the greatest possible is named ‘the fundamental principle of metaphysics’ (the meaning of the term metaphysics is explained in another lesson).

The fundamental principle and its consequences are an ideal metaphysics, perfectly true from their demonstration, which depended on the abstraction in the concepts of ‘universe’ and ‘void’.

Real metaphysics

Realization of the ultimate is a given, but how shall it be realized? Given realization as an ideal, and that our pragmatic knowledge is the only further instrument, the join of the perfect and the pragmatic is perfect relative to the ideal.

The result of the joining of the perfect and the pragmatic is named ‘the real metaphysics’.

The means of realization

The means are of the subject and object sides of experiential being.

1. The subject side—

Meditation, metaphysics, art, reason, traditions of realization (suitably formulated to eliminate contradiction and mere dogma), and immersion in the world.

2. The object side—

Physical ‘discipline’, science, technology, and exploration.

An imperative

Pleasure and pain are unavoidable.

Enjoyment is balanced appreciation of all dimensions of experience, particularly pleasure and pain. From metaphysics supplemented by tradition, there are intelligent and effective shared pathways to the ultimate.

If enjoyment is a fundamental value, to be on a pathway is imperative.

To be on a pathway is not just to follow. It is to be engaged in negotiating, developing, and sharing the ways.

Doubt

Though demonstration has been given, there ought to be doubt (i) from the nature of the proof, which lacks empirical support (science, too, lacks ultimate empirical support) (ii) from the magnitude of the conclusions.

However, given consistency, the very same magnitude of the potential outcome implies that expected value is maximized in giving some weight and energies to being on and developing paths.

This suggests alternate attitudes to the metaphysical development—particularly to the ‘fundamental principle’ that the universe is the greatest possible.

Attitude

The following three attitudes are suggested—

1. Treat the fundamental principle as a self and externally consistent hypothesis or axiom founding knowledge of the universe.

2. Treat the principle as an existential attitude to guide thought and action.

3. As a perfect framework for knowledge and action, with finality in depth but not in breadth—i.e., to be filled in with in-process detail. Since no better is available to temporarily limited beings on paths, the system—depth and detail—is perfect in terms of the emergent criterion of being on the way to the ultimate.

Knowledge

There is an ideal of knowledge as truth. This ideal is realized in depth, though not in breadth. However, the ideal can be an impediment—the thinker thinks their thoughts important in themselves, but, regardless of the thinker’s ideal, knowledge, even pure knowledge, is always in give and take relation with action. We ought not to wait for perfection. This ideal of balance between perfection and pragmatism is woven into the present development. There are implications for metaphysics and epistemology.

They also serve

Recall that ‘if the universe were not the greatest, nothingness would not be nothingness’. The idea of the universe emerging from nothingness suggests that nothingness is not nothingness.

There is a world of paradox that lies behind our developments (it is elaborated in ancient and modern works); yet nothingness does not cause the emergence—the emergence is necessary, but the void does not cause it.

We avoid paradox by abstraction. The world is the possible suggests the paradox—it is possible that the possible is impossible. But it is not. The concept of the possible, being that which may obtain, implies that it can occasion no paradox, no unreal—that the only paradox it occasions will be no more than seeming.

What of those who do not seek meaning because they lack the resource? Though he wrote in a different context, the words of John Milton are an answer—“They also serve, who only stand and wait.”

Though realization is our ideal, our lives are marked by struggle. Look with kindness on eternity, your fellow, and yourself. We may amend Milton’s words to “When we find ourselves marking time, we are already merged with the ultimate, if only we would look.”

That is—in the end, the mundane and the sublime (the immediate and the ultimate) are one.

Overview, design, and plan

About the lessons

The lessons are a ‘way into the way of being’ that (i) given broad acceptance of limited secular and transsecular paradigms of the way the world is, prepare readers for the real metaphysics for the limitless universe (ii) present the metaphysics (iii) lay the foundation of realization of the limitless ultimate (iv) sustain the associated gestalt and living toward the ultimate in and from the immediate (v) address and employ the difficulties of language and reflection on the same (vi) while having subtlety and sophistication, avoid entrapment in the edge of sophistication and ignorance and emphasize that the aim is clear and upward thinking and action (vii) help sustain action in two worlds—the immediate world of limited being and pragmatic ideas and the ultimate world of limitless and precise thought and being.

Deciding the lessons

The discussion above suggests some lessons and how to arrive at lessons.

Additionally, I will survey potential readers for their interests, view of the world, needs, wants, and reactions to the way of being. Possible elements of the survey—

i. Personality (Jungian typology).

ii. Secular vs transsecular (seeker, follower, or passive; dogma vs reason).

iii. Economic situation and education.

iv. Conservative vs liberal.

v. Attitude to the authority of received truth.

vi. Are they self-entertaining?

vii. Prefers town or nature.

Plan

Implement the overview and design. Review, finalize, and writeup the lesson titles. A star* marks a section that is especially tentative or skeletal.

Previous versions

These are for reference—

versions\lessons for the way of being-May 21, 2023.html